The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, August 28, 2015

Some
on Greenfield’s list of traitors are no surprise. Senator Markey got
the maximum campaign contribution from the Iranians and has announced
his support for the Iran deal. So did Al Franken. Senator Jeanne
Shaheen did it for half price.

Frontpage
Magazine has published a bombshell report that has been met with total
silence by the media. Daniel Greenfield’s piece is entitled “Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes.”

Our
politicians bought by Iran include not just a list of senators and
congressmen about to vote on the Iran deal. Recipients of Iran’s
largess for their campaigns include President Obama, Joe Biden, John
Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.

Both
of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash
controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of
defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the
Iran Lobby.

Namazee
was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a
fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme
encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Namazee had been an IAPAC
trustee and had helped set up the organization.Bill
Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina
when he had only been a citizen for two years. A spoilsport Senate
didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US
ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem
fundraising circuit.Nemazee
had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the
Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as
well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal.
Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.

The
article goes on to list other senators and congressmen who have come
out in support of our new policy of handing Iran a $120 billion to spend
on terrorism (40 times our military aid to Israel or Egypt), letting
Iran go nuclear, and setting Iran up as the hegemon of the Middle East.
They have all been lavished with money from IAPAC for their campaigns.

Point of interest: the Israel Lobby, AIPAC, does not make direct campaign contributions.

Some
on Greenfield’s list of traitors are no surprise. Senator Markey got
the maximum campaign contribution from the Iranians and has announced
his support for the Iran deal. So did Al Franken. Senator Jeanne
Shaheen did it for half price.

Then there are the surprises:

The
Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff
Flake…and invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that
effort also failed….Still these donations were only the tip of the Iran Lobby iceberg.Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee. But
the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins … when two of their biggest politicians,
Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the
administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been
major donors to both men.That
list includes Housang Amirahmadi, the founder of the American Iranian
Council, who had spoken of a campaign to “conquer Obama’s heart and
mind” and had described himself as “the Iranian lobby in the United
States.” It includes the Iranian Muslim Association of North America
(IMAN) board members who had fundraised for Biden. And it includes the
aforementioned Hassan Nemazee.A
member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being
“financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California
and by the Silicon Iran network.” Biden’s affinity for the terrorist
regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, “Seems
to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check
for $200 million to Iran”.… Questions about donations from the Iran Lobby had haunted Kerry’s campaign.
Back then Kerry had been accused of supporting an agreement favorable
to Iran. The parameters of that controversial proposal however were less
generous than the one that Obama and Kerry are trying to sell now.

This is a little-known story from Kerry’s presidential bid.

Insight Magazine reporter and author Kenneth Timmerman charged that the Kerry
campaign had violated the law by taking contributions from Susan
Akbarpour, a pro-regime fund-raised who was neither a citizen nor
possessed a green card at that time.

During a presidential debate, Democrat candidate Kerry suggested that the U.S. should provide nuclear fuel to Iran.

Greenfield calls the Iran deal by its real name: treason.

Obama
and his allies, Iranian and domestic, have accused opponents of his
dirty Iran deal of making “common cause” with that same terror regime
and of treason. The ugly truth is that he and his political accomplices
were the traitors all along.Democrats in favor of a deal … have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. …This
deal has come down from Iran Lobby influenced politicians like Kerry
and is being waved through by members of Congress who have taken money
from the Iran Lobby. That is treason plain and simple.

Beneath a vexing tangle of
funding operations -- most hiding under a pretense of "good works,"
"humanitarian aid," and "public interest" -- there is at work a
sophisticated, multi-faceted, well-oiled propaganda machine against
Israel.

A chief concern in the Knesset is how to curb the influx of
millions of foreign dollars used to fund anti-Israel hate-groups
operating as NGOs. These organizations are accused of using their "human
rights" designation to mask a deceptive advocacy agenda to undermine,
and even to destroy, Israel.

When Israel works to build "bridges for peace," such as
SodaStream, where Arabs and Jews worked peacefully together, these
organizations then knock them down.

Apparently, no one at World Vision asks the obvious question: Why are
there even refugee camps in territories controlled by the Palestinian
Authority (PA) and Hamas, such as Gaza, Jenin and Ramallah? Not only
have those areas been under exclusive PA or Hamas civilian
administration since 1994, but Israel totally evacuated the Gaza Strip
in 2005.

There is a European "jihad" against Israel. A significant number of
activist groups -- presenting themselves as international humanitarian
aid and charitable projects designed to benefit the Palestinian people
-- are actually "directly or indirectly active in Boycott, Divestment
and Sanctions(BDS) campaigns, lawfare, delegitimization and lobbying
against Israel," according to a detailed report by NGO Monitor.

Every year, European governments send hundreds of millions of dollars
for humanitarian aid projects in Palestinian territories. Ostensibly,
the money is intended for projects such as improving medical care,
alleviating poverty, improving schools, or enhancing infrastructure.

But beneath the surface lurk more venomous political advocacy agendas apparently designed to undermine Israel as a nation-state.

Some of these European governments give money directly to the
Palestinian Authority (PA). Others funnel it through non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that are present themselves as charitable groups.

These governments and European-funded NGOs, however, often seem more
dedicated to propaganda, political activism and undermining Israel, and
less aimed at helping the Palestinians. Between 2012 -2014, for
instance, more than $27 million in foreign funds have flowed into the
bank accounts of radical left-wing NGOs in Israel, all in some way
involved in anti-Israel advocacy activities.

A
2008 conference on "Impunity and Prosecution of Israeli War Criminals,"
held in Egypt in 2008, was sponsored by the European Union. (Image
source: NGO Monitor)

Israeli leaders are finally beginning to raise serious doubts about
the real motives behind some of these politically-motivated efforts.

Recently, for example, a controversial exhibit by "Breaking the Silence" (BtS) opened in Zurich, Switzerland. The BtS exhibit accuses
the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of human rights violations. It
incorporates anecdotal, unverifiable, anonymous testimonies of 60
soldiers who accuse the IDF of wrongdoing during Operation Protective
Edge in Gaza last summer.

The BtS exhibit spins a narrative that seems deliberately distorted
and lopsided against the IDF. The exhibit's critics suggest that these
soldiers may have been selected precisely because they had some axe to
grind against the IDF.

It even turns out that funders of the exhibit demanded "a minimum number of negative testimonies," according research by NGO Monitor.

The exhibit never mentions any context surrounding the Gaza
operation: nothing about the rockets raining down on Israel from the
terrorist groups in Gaza; nothing about Hamas-built tunnels that opened
near schools and private homes inside Israel; nothing about Hamas's
common practice of hiding terrorists and weapons among its own women and
children for propaganda purposes.

Israel's government, understandably, cried foul.
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely and Justice Minister Ayelet
Shaked have been leading the charge to remedy this diplomatic jihad
against the State of Israel at its source.

Hotovely alleged that the use of Swiss government money -- to
demonize, delegitimize, and basically to try to destroy Israel -- is
illegitimate. "We cannot," Hotovely said,
"accept a situation whereby an organization, whose entire purpose is to
sully the names and reputations of IDF soldiers, is operating
internationally in order to cause serious damage to the State of
Israel's image."

Loyal IDF reservists, also outraged by the exhibit, have mounted their own campaign against what they claim is a false and unfair assault on the military and the nation.

According to a report in the Jerusalem Post,
ten Swiss MPs from the Swiss-Israel Parliamentary Group issued a
statement on June 2, opposing using taxpayer money to fund the exhibit:

"We condemn sharply the sponsorship of Breaking the
Silence, with public monies through the EDA [Swiss Foreign Ministry] and
the Zurich Finance Department, and expect in future a careful
examination of projects and those organizations standing behind such
projects before Swiss taxpayer money is misused."

In the wake of the international stir over the legitimacy of the travelling exhibit, the mayor of Cologne, Germany, first cancelled, but then reinstated its scheduled appearance there.

Beyond this single inflammatory exhibit against the IDF, however,
lies a much more complex and malignant problem -- one that brings to the
forefront some disturbing concerns and questions about the nature and
purpose of foreign government funding of NGOs in Israel
: What is their real agenda? How and where are they getting their
money? Are they using their funds for purposes consistent with their
stated goals?

According to a recent Reuters report,
of the 30,000 NGOs operating in Israel, "the focus of frustration for
[Justice Minister] Shaked and her supporters are around 70 whose work
focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and which receive funds
either from the European Union as a whole, or individual governments,
including Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Norway."

A chief concern in Israel's Knesset is how to curb the influx of millions of foreign dollars
used to fund anti-Israel hate-groups operating as NGOs. These
organizations are accused of using their "human rights" designation to
mask a deceptive advocacy agenda to undermine, and even to destroy, Israel.

Beneath a vexing tangle of funding operations -- most hiding under a
pretense of "good works," "humanitarian aid," and "public interest" --
there is at work a sophisticated, multi-faceted, well-oiled propaganda machine against Israel.

Breaking the Silence
is one of the smallest. Founded in 2004, BtS is registered as "a
company for the benefit of the public" with a budget of roughly 3
million shekels ($770,000 USD), according to 2015 figures.

According to a recent report by the Israeli organization Im Tirtzu,
partial funding for Breaking the Silence ($300,000), B'Tselem
($700,000) and other pro-Palestinian NGOs in Israel -- totaling
$11,000,000 in 2014 alone -- comes from The Human Rights and
International Humanitarian Law Secretariat (HRIHL), an Arab foundation
based in Ramallah and Gaza. HRIHL, in turn, is funded predominantly by
the governments of four European countries: Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland
and The Netherlands.

"When we use the concept 'political terrorism' we wish to
indicate various actions which are not actually physically violent, but
which are intended to spread terror and fear ... for the achievement of
political aims."The State of Israel and the IDF in particular are suffering from
political terrorism because various political entities in Israel and
abroad (such as states, organizations, foundations, etc.) are carrying
out political actions with the aim of paralyzing Israel's ability to
defend itself."

Two of the wealthiest international human rights NGOs at work in Israel are OXFAM and World Vision.

Oxfam, which operates an international confederation of networked organizations in 92 countries, had a total income in 2012-2013 of $955.9 million, of which $18.7 million was spent in "Occupied Palestinian Territory" in 2013.

OXFAM states clearly
that it does not participate in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
(BDS) movement against Israel, yet affirmed its boycott of goods made in
the "Israeli settlements in the West Bank". We are clearly not hearing
the truth.

Pressure from OXFAM and BDS groups contributed to a recent decision
by SodaStream to close its factory in Mishor Adumim, where it had
employed hundreds of Arabs and Israelis working peacefully side by side.

Arab wages
and working conditions at SodaStream were reported to be significantly
better than their equivalents in the neighboring Arab-controlled
territories in Judea and Samaria. When the plant moved, hundreds of
Arabs were thrown out of work -- a result that apparently did not bother
proponents of BDS such as OXFAM. When Israel works to build "bridges
for peace," such as SodaStream, where Arabs and Jews worked peacefully
together, these organizations promptly knock them down.

World Vision International, a Christian charity that operates in
approximately 100 countries, with a 2012 budget of $2.67 billion,
defines the region it serves as Jerusalem/West Bank and Gaza.[1] World Vision makes no bones about its exclusive ministry in the area on behalf of poor Arab children. Conversely, it specifically does not serve the needs of poor Israeli-Jewish children. An estimated 14.1% of Jewish Israeli families live below the poverty line.

On the World Vision web site, there is a brief pro-Arab version
of the "history, people and geography" of the region, which distorts or
omits all history that might put the Arabs in a bad light. The web site
mentions nothing of Hamas bombs, rockets or general Arab violence
against Israel. The narrative singles out only the plight of "displaced
Arab refugees."

No one at World Vision asks the obvious question: Why are there even refugee camps
in territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas,
such as Gaza, Jenin and Ramallah? Not only have those areas been under
exclusive PA or Hamas civilian administration since 1994, but Israel
totally evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Both OXFAM and World Vision receive large sums of money from the
United Nations, various government and non-government sources,
foundations and other institutions.

NGO Monitor issued a report calling attention to the public debate on massive foreign government funding of highly political NGOs.
Various media, government and legislative concerns about the
manipulation of Israeli democracy by foreign governments through NGO
activity triggered the debate that resulted in Israel's NGO Transparency
Law (February 2011).

In 2013,
there were several failed attempts to pass bills in the Knesset to
reduce the influx of foreign government money. Now in the wake of the
Breaking the Silence exhibit, Hotovely, Shaked and others are mounting a renewed effort to remedy at least this one source of diplomatic jihad against the State of Israel.

Susan Warner is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of
Gatestone Institute and co-founder of a Christian group, Olive Tree
Ministries in Wilmington, DE, USA. She has been writing and teaching
about Israel and the Middle East for over 15 years. Contact her atisraelolivetree@yahoo.com.

[1] Through various partners,
World Vision operates 14 programs in Bethlehem, West Ramallah, East and
South Hebron, Northeast, West, and South Jenin, Southeast Salfit, East,
Central, North, and South Nablus, as well as North and South Gaza.

Susan Warner is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of
Gatestone Institute and co-founder of a Christian group, Olive Tree
Ministries in Wilmington, DE, USA. She has been writing and teaching
about Israel and the Middle East for over 15 years. Contact her at israelolivetree@yahoo.com.Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6266/europe-ngo-israel Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Nearly 200 retired U.S. generals and admirals urge Congress to nix the Iran
deal, saying it threatens U.S. national security • Deal will let Iran
"become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable, and
introduce new threats," letter says.

Inside an Iranian nuclear facility

|

Photo credit: AP

Nearly 200 retired U.S. generals and admirals
have sent a letter to Congress calling on lawmakers to reject the
nuclear deal with Iran, saying it poses a threat to America's national
security, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

"The agreement will enable Iran to become far
more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new
threats to American interests as well as our allies," the letter said.

In the letter, which was addressed to
Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the former military officers said the deal would not
prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

"Removing sanctions on Iran and releasing
billions of dollars to its regime over the next 10 years is inimical to
the security of Israel and the Middle East," the letter said. "There is
no credibility within [the deal's] inspection process or the ability to
snap back sanctions once lifted, should Iran violate the agreement. In
this and other respects, [the deal] would threaten the national security
and vital interests of the United States and, therefore, should be
disapproved by the Congress."

Signatories of the letter included retired members of all branches of the U.S. military.

Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas
McInerney, one of the letter's signatories, told the Washington Post
that he considers the Iran deal to be the most dangerous nuclear accord
in American history.

"What I don't like about this is, the number
one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the Iranians,"
McInerney was quoted as saying. "They are purveyors of radical Islam
throughout the region and throughout the world. And we are going to
enable them to get nuclear weapons. Why would we do that?"

Meanwhile, in a Washington Post op-ed
published earlier this week, former U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross and former
CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus wrote, "Deterrence is the key to
ensuring not just that the Iranians live up to the agreement but also to
preventing them from developing nuclear weapons. Iran must know that we
will not permit it to become a nuclear weapons state, ever.

"Now is the time to make it clear that there
will be a firewall between Iran's threshold status and its having a
nuclear weapon. Now is the time for the Iranians and the world to know
that if Iran dashes toward a weapon, especially after year 15, that it
will trigger the use of force. At that point, it would be too late for
sanctions to pre-empt an Iranian nuclear fait accompli.

"Bolstering deterrence is essential in
addressing key vulnerabilities we see in the deal. A blunter statement
on the consequences of Iran moving toward a weapon and of producing
highly enriched uranium would allay some of our concerns. Providing the
Israelis the MOP [a 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb] and the means to
carry it would surely enhance deterrence -- and so would developing
options now in advance with the Israelis and key Arab partners to
counter Iran's likely surge of support for Hezbollah and other Shiite
militias after it gets sanctions relief.

"Deterrence would be more effective -- and full
implementation of the agreement more likely -- if the Iranians
understand that there will be a price for every transgression, no matter
how small, and that we will raise the cost to them of destabilizing
behavior in the region."

I have pointed out again and again and again that the groups represented by virtually all illegal migrants and refugees — and 85 percent of legal immigrants since 1965
— vote for socialistic candidates between 70 to 90 percent of the time
upon being naturalized.

Jeb
Bush has called illegal migration “an act of love.” And all over the
West we see nations being loved to death, with endless human waves from
Third World countries washing ashore. The results were predictable and
are now plain: balkanization, riots, ethnic and racial strife and no-go
areas in European lands. Yet we’re told that accepting what are
“refugees” is a humanitarian imperative. Yet no one, it seems, points
out an obvious fact, something that really is the crux of the matter.

If
a stranger in need happens by your area and you’re a charitable sort,
you may take him in for a time, feed him and provide other basic
necessities.

You
don’t generally make him an official part of your family and empower
him to help decide on finances, what products to buy, how your kids will
be educated and what values will prevail within your home.

The
point? At issue in the current “refugee crisis” is not charity and the
humane treatment of refugees. This isn’t only because most of the
migrants in question may not even be refugees.

It’s because the issue is granting uninvited guests citizenship.

People
talk about the financial burden of accommodating Third World migrants,
largely because money (as opposed to national integrity) is all a
demoralized and denationalized people think to discuss and because
finances are a politically correct subject. But a national family can
recover from devastated finances. It can’t recover from a destroyed
national family.

I have pointed outagain and again and again that the groups represented by virtually all illegal migrants and refugees — and 85 percent of legal immigrants since 1965
— vote for socialistic candidates between 70 to 90 percent of the time
upon being naturalized. And then there’s another obvious but overlooked
factor: The people make the culture and government.
Replace a Western people with Muslims or Mexicans and you no longer
have Western civilization. You have Mexico Norte or Iran West.

Unfortunately,
the granting of aid and the granting of citizenship have been so melded
into one amorphous, superficially homogenous blob of bad policy that
most people don’t even recognize they should be two distinct and separate issues — as they had been for most of history.

Of
course, this serves the Left’s ends. The Refugee Crisis™ debate is
framed as a battle between compassionate liberals responding to
desperate pleas and coin-counting, callous, conservative reactionaries.
But charitable motives animate the Left little, if at all. Liberals are notoriously tightfisted with (their own) charitable dollars; even more to the point, when a shipload of Jews
fleeing Nazi persecution wanted safe haven in the US, leftist icon FDR
turned it away. It’s one of those curious coincidences in history that
the Left’s attitude toward refugees changed precisely when leftists
discovered they could import voters who would empower them.

And
does attaching something as a rider — citizenship — to charity aid the
cause of charity? Are people more or less likely to offer charity to a
person if the act begins and ends with charity, or if they must grant
the individual some decision-making power in their home as well? That’s a
package deal only a masochist could love.

So
there’s an easy way to uncover liberals’ true motivations and whether
they’re serious about charity for refugees. Make a simple offer: you’ll
give bona fide refugees safe haven, and you’ll do your best to ensure
they’re treated well. But there’s no citizenship. Ever. And they’ll be
expected to eventually return to their homelands. See if the leftists
bite…anything but your extended hand.

But liberals have already tipped their hand. Andrew Neather, a former adviser to ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, admitted
in 2009 that one of the goals of the mass immigration authored by his
Labour Party was “to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their
arguments out of date.” Barack Obama said
in February he was “pretty optimistic” that because immigration was
making the US “more of a hodgepodge of folks,” conservatism would be
drowned out. Even more incredibly, there was this report,
which tells us that “Obama’s amnesty plan is to use illegal aliens as
‘seedlings’…[who will] ‘navigate, not assimilate,’ as they ‘take over
the host,’ create a ‘country within a country’ and start ‘pushing the
citizens into the shadows,’” as I wrote
in March. And a refugee scam is part of this: in order to get around
immigration law and maximize Third World migration into the US, the
Obama administration is categorizing as many people as possible as
“refugees.”

This brings us to a contradiction here. On the one hand, liberals sometimes point out that despite doom-and-gloom prognostication, we live in the most “peaceful era in human history.”
And they cite statistics backing up the assertion. On the other, they
claim we must suddenly accommodate endless troves of “refugees” fleeing
persecution. Question: if the world is unprecedentedly peaceful, why now
do we have a supposedly worse refugee crisis than in more warlike
times?

There’s
another contradiction. We’re told that prosperous countries have a
moral responsibility to the world’s poorer nations. So why then are
wealthy Asian Tigers never asked to absorb any “refugees”? Japan, in
fact, has virtually no immigration whatsoever despite having an
extremely low birthrate and shrinking population. Moreover, since many
refugees are Muslim, why aren’t Saudi Arabia, Qatar, The United Arab
Emirates and the other oil-rich Arab nations taking them in? Wouldn’t it
seem a natural fit? (Then they could stop importing the Filipinos and
others they use for domestic help.) Maybe they know something we don’t.

In
a sense, most of the world could be said to comprise would-be economic
refugees. After all, how many people in Asia, Africa and Latin America
wouldn’t want to emigrate to the West and enjoy the welfare state? And
how many should, and can, the West absorb? One billion? Two billion?
Three billion?

There
undoubtedly are people in this world facing serious persecution. As to
this, the West in general and the Obama administration in particular
have done nothing to aid, for instance, the Christians being slaughtered
in Muslim lands. But the bottom line is that the “refugees” are coming
to the West simply because the West is nicer than where they come from.
And they will keep coming until they’ve turned the West into where
they’ve come from — unless we change course.

There’s
much talk today about anchor babies, but that’s only part of our
obsession with granting citizenship to foreigners. Workers should be
expected to work and go home. Guests should be expected to visit and go
home. For whether or not you believe charity begins at home, for certain
is that conflating it with family status is robbing us of our home.

Ukraine
has yet come to terms with the past, as Germany and Poland have tried
to do. Jews are still being assaulted in Kiev; Jewish synagogues,
monuments, and cemeteries are still being desecrated. Anti-Semitic
pamphlets are being distributed.

On
August 21, 2015, the Israeli-born actress Natalie Portman, who won an
Oscar in 2011 for her role as an obsessed ballerina in the film Black Swan,
made a controversial debut on the political stage. She commented that
the Holocaust has been the focus of too much attention from some in the
Jewish community, and that it should not be used as a paranoid way of
thinking that we (Jews) are victims.

Ms.
Portman is recognized as an impressive actress, but her political views
and the timing of her political statement would not receive an Oscar.
Portman may not be obsessed by the question of the Holocaust, but other
contrary views appeared virtually simultaneously. The Holocaust issue
was ignited about the same time of her statement by non-Jews in two
ways: one by the notorious British Holocaust denier David Irving, the
other by the publication of extraordinary heartrending photographs of
the humiliation and murder of Jews in Ukraine during World War II.With
brazen immodesty, David Irving sells himself as the world’s most
respected historian and the world’s top expert on World War II. Most of
the world thinks otherwise. He lost a court case when in 1996 he sued
Professor Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books for defamation concerning
his denial of the existence of Nazi gas chambers. In another case, he
was sentenced to three years' imprisonment by an Austrian court in 2006
for denying the Holocaust.

In
London in late July 2015, Irving addressed a secret meeting of 120
fascist sympathizers and neo-Nazis, some of whom wore black T-shirts
with the logos of European fascist groups, with others dressed in
camouflage with chains. Other speakers at this gathering of the most
well-known international Holocaust deniers included an individual who
describes himself as the “best friend” of Rudolf Hess and the American
Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review and
publisher of a journal that promotes Holocaust denial.

More
startling than the disgraceful ignorance and bigotry of these Holocaust
deniers is the publication in August 2015 in the London Daily Mail of
evidence of the still not fully revealed enormity of the Holocaust in
Ukraine. This evidence is mainly due to the work of a French Catholic
priest, Father Patrick Desbois, consultant to the Vatican and co-founder
in 2004 of Yahad-in-Unum, whose objectives are to confront
anti-Semitism and to further relations between Catholics and Jews.

Desbois, a forensic anthropologist, published Holocaustby Bullets,
on the Nazi mobile units that killed the Jewish population of small
villages. Over the last decade he has been concerned with identifying
and locating mass graves of Jews killed during the Holocaust in Eastern
Europe. Through careful research in Russia, Germany, and Washington,
D.C., and by inspections of villages across the Ukraine and Eastern
Europe and interviews with residents, Father Desbois and his team of
Yahad-in-Unum have uncovered 2,000 mass killing sites in the continent
of extermination.

Unlike
Natalie Portman and like-minded persons, Desbois wants to make the
world more, not less, aware of the assassinations of Jews. He asserts
that some of the facts of the genocide have not been declared. He
estimates that more than 1.5 million, more than the usually quoted
figure, of victims were buried in the graves he found in Ukraine. He is
anxious to locate all the sites – there may be more than 6,000 other
sites to be uncovered – before all the witnesses, who only recently were
ending their vow of silence about the atrocities, have died. Thus,
history will not die with the witnesses. Desbois is aware that
otherwise, the Holocaust deniers will overreact, as they have always
done, and proclaim that Jews have falsified the story.

The
sickening photographs and script made public in August 2015 reveal in
horrifying detail the humiliation, public beatings in the street,
whippings, and individual murder of perhaps as many as 1.6 million Jews
who were summarily shot and buried in graves nearby. Often Jews were
forced to dig pits and to strip naked before being killed, or were
buried alive. Jews were killed for fun, or because of boredom, anger,
or drunkenness, or to rape the girls. The perpetrators ransacked the
clothes of the victims for cash and valuables.

Another
interesting point emerges from this history. In the town of Rava
Ruska, the Germans killed 25,000 Soviet prisoners. There is now a
memorial for those prisoners. But an even larger number of Jews were
murdered there or in the area, and there are no memorials for the mass
graves of the Jews.

The
Nazis, of course, were responsible for the Holocaust, but the Ukrainian
local Auxiliary Police forces, trained by the Nazis, played an active
role. In Lyov, where more than 4,000 Jews were killed, a Ukrainian mob
took part in the stripping and humiliation of Jewish women in the
streets. It is horrifying to see the smiling faces of Ukrainian
bystanders who watched Jewish men and women being humiliated. It is a
reminder that about a quarter of all Jews killed in the genocide were
Ukrainian Jews.

One
remembers that Ukrainians suffered in the years of 1932-33 with the
Holodomor, the intentional famine policy of Stalin, which they address
as a genocide equal to that of the Nazi genocide. Nevertheless, it is
disconcerting that Ukrainians spokespeople excuse their past and stress
this while ignoring the anti-Semitism and the role Ukrainians played in
the mass murder in their country.

Ukraine
has yet come to terms with the past, as Germany and Poland have tried
to do. Jews are still being assaulted in Kiev; Jewish synagogues,
monuments, and cemeteries are still being desecrated. Anti-Semitic
pamphlets are being distributed. Ukrainian nationalists still express
anti-Semitic sentiments. Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the political
party Svoboda, called on the president of the country to end the
“criminal activities of organized Jewry,” as well as asserting that
Ukraine was controlled by a “Moscow-Jewish Mafia.”

Above
all, there have been little or no official or unofficial apologies for
the brutal actions of Ukrainians during the war, such as the apologies
that have come from other countries, especially France and Germany. At
this moment, when Ukraine seeks sympathy and American aid in its
struggle with Russia, and when the U.S. considers its policy toward the
area, Ukraine might do well to apologize for its misdeeds in the past
and attempt to close the dark pages of its history.

Civilizations don’t fall because there are barbarians at the gate.
There are barbarians at the gate because a dying civilization has lost
touch with the values that made it great.

Across Europe, thousands of churches
have closed and many of them have become mosques. The St. Mark’s
Cathedral in London survived Nazi bombers in WW2, but fell to a new
invasion and became the New Peckham Mosque. In France, where there are
now more Muslims than practicing Catholics, the Islamic colonists
demanded that thousands of empty churches be turned into mosques. The
Capernaum Church in Germany has become the Al-Nour Islamic Center. In
Amsterdam, the St. Ignatius Church was transformed into the Fatih Camii
Mosque. Its name means ‘The Conqueror’s Mosque’.

The original
Fatih Camii Mosque had been built by the Turkish invaders in
Constantinople on the site of the Church of the Holy Apostles. Like
their ISIS descendants, the Turks drove out the Greek Christians,
destroyed the church and replaced it with a mosque named after the
monster Mehmed II, who inaugurated Islamic rule over the fallen city
with slavery, rape and beheadings in the ISIS style.

Today
‘Conqueror’s Mosques’ have sprung up not only in Istanbul and Amsterdam,
but in Paris, Toronto, Melbourne and Brooklyn, where within sight of
the Statue of Liberty extending her torch of freedom to the oppressed of
the world, stands the grim squalid outpost of the oppressor of the
world.

Mehmed and the Statue of Liberty, the armies of Islam and our way of freedom cannot long coexist.

Islam is conquering Europe. It is also conquering America.

In Syracuse, New York, the Holy Trinity Catholic Church has become
a mosque. Despite the church being protected by the Landmark
Preservation Board, its crosses were cut down and painted over. After
the Islamic terror attacks of September 11, no more planes flew into
buildings. Instead they landed at airports disgorging a different sort
of conquering army that came with visas instead of boxcutters.

In the decade after 9/11, the number of Muslims in Onondaga County more
than doubled. A key role was played by Catholic Charities of Onondaga
County, which could not find the money and energy to maintain a church
into which generations of immigrations had poured their hopes and
dreams, but which served as one of the VOLAGs (voluntary agencies) filling the area with UNHCR approved refugees.

75% of the “refugees”
colonizing Syracuse are Muslim. Almost a thousand refugees a year are
inflicted on the people of Syracuse who already live in the 23rd
poorest city out of the 575 biggest cities in the country. Half the
children of Syracuse live in poverty. But each refugee means a $725
check for the VOLAG. Last year that meant a $3 million grant for
Catholic Charities.

And while VOLAGs like Catholic Charities
cater to migrants, churches are turned into mosques. The North Side,
where Catholic Charities has been active in its “charity work” is now
full of women in hijabs and the Holy Trinity Church is no more.

Yusuf Soule, who bought the church, explained why he chose
it. “The North Side is the magnet for refugees. The two agencies that
work with refugees (InterFaith Works and Catholic Charities) are here.”

The more of these magnets we create, the fewer churches and synagogues there will be. Temple Beth El in Syracuse was hit by a Muslim terrorist who set fire to it while shouting, “I did this for you, Allah.”

No one had to set the Holy Trinity Church on fire. The Conference of Catholic Bishops took care of that.

Civilizations don’t fall because there are barbarians at the gate.
There are barbarians at the gate because a dying civilization has lost
touch with the values that made it great. The barbarians didn’t bring
down Byzantium. They aren’t bringing down America and Europe. The
barbarians of the prophet just show up to profit from the fall and we
are the ones who open the gates and hand over the keys to our killers.

Islam is built on the bones of civilizations. Every Islamic mosque is a conqueror’s mosque.

The most thrilling experience for the new colonizers of the West is
the taking of a church or a synagogue and transforming it into a
mosque. While for the moment this has to be done legally, it is the
closest thing to the ISIS experience that an Islamist can have in
America or Europe without going to jail.

This tragedy isn’t only happening in Europe. As the events in Syracuse show, it is taking place right here.

And it isn’t only Catholic churches in New York that are falling
victim to this new breed of immigrant Taliban demolishing the un-Islamic
to make way for the Islamic.

Two Baptist churches in Louisville, Kentucky have been turned into mosques.

“On a trip to England a few years ago, I recall seeing dozens of
churches that had become mosques and wondering how it could happen
there; now it’s happening here,” Paul Chitwood, the executive director
of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, said.

Churches are being turned into mosques all across America. The
Abundant Life Family Church in Nebraska is now the Sabah Mosque. St. John’s Catholic Church in Minneapolis became the Darul-Uloom Islamic Center. In Detroit, Our Lady Help of Christians Church fell to the Islamic Center of North Detroit.

Slowly and quietly, this is happening all across America as the
Immigration Jihad uses taxpayer money to accomplish what Mohammed, Al
Qaeda and ISIS could not. Al Qaeda can destroy our buildings, but only
our government can import Muslim colonists who will take over them as
bases for their ideology.

Back in Istanbul, Erdogan’s Islamist
regime continues pressing to convert churches into mosques, completing
the original work of the Caliphate before it was aborted by secular
reformers.

Erdogan had made his agenda clear when he recited
the Islamist poem proclaiming, “The minarets are our bayonets, the
mosques are our barracks, the believers are our soldiers”. And so it
has ever been.

The secular West is being swiftly Islamized.
Vacant churches become mosques. The barracks of Islam fill with
believers who batten on the hate and go out one day to behead a soldier
or shoot up a recruiting office. Minarets hatefully thrust their
bayonets at the sky warning of a larger war to come.

The
Immigration Jihad is colonization plain and simple. It is a war of birth
rates and beliefs. A West whose elites have lost their faith is unable
to come to terms with the fact that the East has not. The mosques are
not “additions to the community”, they are outposts of a hostile
civilization whose faith is in the destruction of the West. ISIS or the
Muslim torching a synagogue while crying, “I did this for you, Allah”
are all part of one terrible arc of theological destruction.

In Mosul, the Syrian Orthodox Church of St Ephraim has been captured by
ISIS and turned into a mosque. While we bemoan the barbarisms of ISIS,
we are assembling its building blocks right here in our cities. Churches
become mosques. Beheadings and horrible acts of terrorism take place
monthly.

Our leaders refuse to put the pieces together. They
refuse to understand what the flow of Muslim recruits from America to
ISIS means and what the transformation of churches into barracks and
bayonets means. They refuse to understand that they are helping to build
an Islamic State in America.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the
David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical
Islam.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259932/building-islamic-state-america-one-church-time-daniel-greenfield Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The hypocrisy of Islamists invoking victimhood when it comes to hate
speech is laughable.

Originally published under the title "Quebec Law Would Stifle Free Speech."While the rest of Canada is being force-fed the Duffy Senate
"scandal," in Quebec a proposed law that will label any criticism of
Islam or Islamism as "hate speech" is being quietly pushed through the
National Assembly.

Bill 59 will permit Muslims to make complaints to the Quebec Human
Rights Commission (QHRC) against anyone critiquing Islam or Islamism,
triggering lawsuits for hate speech.

As if that wasn't enough of an attempt to silence Muslims like me,
who have struggled all of our adult lives to expose the perils of
Islamism, Article 6 of Bill 59 would
"give the QHRC the power to initiate legal proceedings before the
Quebec Human Rights Tribunal without having to wait for complaints from
the public."

The leaders of Canada's political parties have so far kept mum on Bill 59.

While this serious encroachment on freedom of expression and speech
is being pushed through the legislative process in Quebec, none of the
leaders of Canada's political parties have uttered a word on the issue.
Not Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who still has not disclosed what he
discussed in his recent closed-door meeting
with Islamic leaders in Regina. Not NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, whose
party has a strong base in Quebec and who has acted as if the
implications of Bill 59 are of no concern to him. Even Prime Minister
Stephen Harper, who has identified Islamism as a threat to Canada, has
so far kept mum on the proposed law.

Muslims in Quebec are divided on its merits, with some in favour and some against.

But ironically, some Islamist-promoting organizations and mosques
have welcomed Bill 59, notwithstanding the fact they violate it every
week when they start their Friday prayers with a ritual invocation that asks Allah to "give Muslims victory over the 'kufaar' (Christians, Jews and Hindus)."

The hypocrisy of Islamists invoking victimhood when it comes to hate speech is laughable.

The hypocrisy of Islamists invoking victimhood when it comes to hate
speech is laughable. Multiple times every day, Islamists have no problem
depicting Jews as "those who have earned Allah's anger" and Christians
as "those who have gone astray" in their prayers, both at home and in
the mosque. Then they cry foul when their man-made Sharia laws written
in the eighth and ninth centuries are critiqued, sometimes by their
fellow Muslims.

Here is how the online Islamic site SunnahOnLine
explains the opening verse of the Qur'an that is part of the mandatory
Islamic prayers in mosques across Quebec and Canada, and which define
the characteristics of Christians and Jews as essentially untrustworthy.
SunnahOnLine quotes the 14th century Islamic scholar At-Tirmidhi
explaining the opening verse of the Qur'an this way:

The Jews and the Christians even though
both of them are misguided and both of them have Allah's Anger on them
-- the Anger is specified to the Jews, even though the Christians share
this with them, because the Jews knew the truth and rejected it and
deliberately came with falsehood.

It seems the Islamists want to have their halal cake and eat it too.
The trouble for them is that Canada still has Muslims who have the
courage to expose their double standards.

Let me assure them that we will do everything we can to make sure
Quebec's Bill 59 does not pass. But if it does become law, the first
complaint to the QHRC will be against Islamist mosques for spreading
hatred against Jews and Christians.

That is a promise.

Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum.Source: http://www.meforum.org/5453/canada-bill-59 Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jeffrey Lewis argues that,
whatever China's motives are for deploying such weapons, "there is no
arguing that China's nuclear force is small." Unless, of course, you
happen to live in Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Nepal, Tibet, the
Philippines, Indonesia, or Malaysia -- all of which collectively have
zero nuclear weapons.

Lewis also assures us China has no interest in a "large" number
of missiles. He argues that China's nuclear posture has been driven "by
an enthusiasm for reaching technological milestones" -- as if China is
simply engaging in a high school science project.

In the nuclear deterrent business, U.S. commanders both civilian and military are paid to take things seriously.

Getting the nuclear deterrent business wrong would, after all, be bad for America, bad for civilization and bad for the world.

Recently, China tested a missile with multiple warheads. Up to that
time, all of China's nuclear-armed missiles were assumed to have only
single warheads. Many of those were liquid-fueled and required
considerable time to load and launch.

It is true that China's increased economic and military clout is seen
by conventional thinking largely as a "peaceful rise" -- a term taken
directly from the Chinese communist party description of its overarching
goal of "pursuing a peaceful rise."

Ahh, a "peaceful rise!" So what's the worry?

According to one arms control analyst, Jeffrey Lewis, China's recent
missile test merely demonstrates Chinese prowess in developing missile
technology -- not any danger to the United States or our allies.

According to Lewis, the Chinese have in fact not changed their
strategy on nuclear weaponry. The test was simply the result of a
"decision taken a long time ago," which Peking just now got around to
implementing. Lewis is implying, of course, that the deployment of many
new warheads in the Chinese nuclear arsenal is not a big deal.

Chinese road-mobile ballistic missiles.

"China," Lewis continues, "has a fairly small arsenal of
nuclear-armed ballistic weapons," but with significant technological
"drawbacks." A recent PBS television documentary approvingly cited a claim that China has only twenty warheads capable of reaching the USA. So what's the problem?

Lewis also reassures us that only some of the 18 Chinese "bad
boy" multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) missiles
can reach "all" of the United States, and a second series of missiles --
the DF-31A -- probably cannot reach "much" of the United States.
China's missiles, writes Lewis, can mostly "only" target Hawaii, Alaska
and the West Coast.

Lewis also argues that in examining "What else would one do with all
that space" on top of a rocket, the Chinese would not necessarily put a
lot of warheads in it. He further explains that the Chinese will
probably also deploy some warhead "decoys" in the same space to "defeat
missile defenses." Oh, so it's our fault: we made the Chinese do it!

Lewis then chastises Americans for thinking there is something
"morally compromised" about China placing multiple warheads on its
ballistic missiles. After all, writes Lewis, the U.S. has multiple
warheads on the D-5 missiles aboard its submarines, so why can the
Chinese not do so as well?

Lewis's position is ironic. Throughout the Reagan defense build-up of
America's nuclear deterrent, the "arms control community" roundly
condemned the U.S. deployment of the multiple-warhead Peacekeeper
land-based missile as highly destabilizing and even immoral.[1] But now
that China is poised to deploy such multiple warheads on both its land-
and sea-based nuclear forces, Lewis argues precisely the opposite --
that it is no cause for concern.

In addition, Lewis notes, whatever China's motives are for deploying
such weapons, "there is no arguing that China's nuclear force is small."
Unless, of course, you happen to live in Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea,
Japan, Nepal, Tibet, the Philippines, Indonesia, or Malaysia -- all of
which have collectively zero nuclear weapons.

Lewis also assures us China has no interest in a "large" number of
missiles. He argues that China's nuclear posture has been driven "by an
enthusiasm for reaching technological milestones" -- as if China is
simply engaging in a high school science project and not seeking nuclear
weaponry as a means of achieving hegemonic ambitions.[2]

And just so we don't get the wrong idea, Lewis reminds us that it was
America's nuclear deterrent "posture," and not China's, that inspired
the movie "Dr. Strangelove."

Lewis also claims that with a multiple warhead missile, the Chinese
can better survive a "sneak attack" because its missile force is small.
However, according to Philip Karber, a retired senior Pentagon official,
a number of top-level sources believe China has 3000 warheads, or 200%
of America's deployed strategic arsenal.[3]

[1] MX Prescription for Disaster, by Herbert Scoville Jr. Illustrated. 231 pp. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.[2] "Strategic Implications of China's Great Underground Wall,"
Philip Karber, September 26, 2011. The Chinese nuclear arsenal probably
is now, or soon will be, in the 400-800 warhead range; but all numbers
are estimates by U.S. and other China experts, not numbers published by
any official Chinese government or military sources. No such data is
available. For further information, see Mark Schneider of NIPP, Dan
Cheng of the Heritage Foundation, and Richard Fischer of the
International Assessment and Strategy Center, all of whom are experts on
the issue.[3] Michael Pillsbury, The Hundred-Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower, Henry Holt and Company 2015; and "China's Missiles and the Implications for the United States," Conference at the Hudson Institute, August 19, 2015, hosted by national security expert Rebeccah Heinrichs.

Peter Huessyis president of GeoStrategic Analysis.Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6396/nuclear-deterrence Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.